Kornheiser Takes Buyout

[PCLoadLetter]

Can someone tell me a little bit about what kind of columnist/writer Kornheiser was when he was on top of his game?

Like I said, all I know is the guy who brags about being uninformed and not paying attention to sports. I'm too young to recall the other incarnation of Kornheiser.

I'm not trying to dog him. I seriously am curious.

I'll let him do the honors for you.

Here.

Here.

Here.

OK, that's tremendous stuff.

Why does he like to act like a dumbass buffoon who doesn't care about anything?

You know, as someone who listens to his radio show every morning, I'm not sure where people are getting this. He's not a dumbass buffoon and he knows what he's talking about.

 

[lono]

Why does he like to act like a dumbass buffoon who doesn't care about anything?

Huh?

Because dumbass buffoonery pays the bills these days; serious sportswriting doesn't.

See: Smith, Stephen A.

 

[Joe Williams]

I have absolutely no problem with somebody quadruple-dipping. I mean, you do good work for a couple decades and when you've reached a point where you can reap the financial rewards for your good work, you're supposed to turn it down? For what? Some noble sense of obligation to an industry that doesn't value its employees? I don't have any problem with guys making a big name for themselves in newspapers, then shifting primarily into other lines of media, and finally punting newspapers to the curb altogether. The only issue I would have is when the writer's new careers demand his time to the point where he can no longer do his newspaper job adequately; but even then, the fault lies more with the newspaper for putting up with it than with the writer for getting away with it. As much as newspapers screw over their employees, I'm not exactly sorry to see a few newspaper employees get to screw newspapers back.

I'm all for people using their newspaper work to springboard to other opportunities.

It's just a matter of timing. If they minimize the time where they left-hand the day job and, ideally, leap completely to the better paying gigs, bully for them!

If they hang onto two or three paychecks, and short-change one or two or all three of them indefinitely, then I lose respect for them. Do it long enough and it becomes downright dishonest, and their reputation as journalists deserve to suffer. You should work as hard for your paycheck in Year X as you did in Year 1, and once you start unilaterally scaling back -- not to care for a sick mother, not to be a better dad but to move your schtick to other media for someone else's paycheck -- you are cheating the system.

And yes, captzulu, it is imperative that the newspaper honchos call someone on that behavior. But doing it is the character flaw, whether you're called on it by bosses or not.

I'm all for TK being an outstanding sports columnist back in the day and I'm all for him being a radio/TV giant now (though I selfishly prefer the former incarnation). I just wish he had made a cleaner break sooner, before he so severely watered down his WaPo work.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

He's bad at his easy job, and he doesn't care that he sucks.

That's buffoonery.

The buyout check has hardly been earned.

 

[Sxysprtswrtr]

I have absolutely no problem with somebody quadruple-dipping. I mean, you do good work for a couple decades and when you've reached a point where you can reap the financial rewards for your good work, you're supposed to turn it down? For what? Some noble sense of obligation to an industry that doesn't value its employees? I don't have any problem with guys making a big name for themselves in newspapers, then shifting primarily into other lines of media, and finally punting newspapers to the curb altogether. The only issue I would have is when the writer's new careers demand his time to the point where he can no longer do his newspaper job adequately; but even then, the fault lies more with the newspaper for putting up with it than with the writer for getting away with it. As much as newspapers screw over their employees, I'm not exactly sorry to see a few newspaper employees get to screw newspapers back.

I'm all for people using their newspaper work to springboard to other opportunities.

It's just a matter of timing. If they minimize the time where they left-hand the day job and, ideally, leap completely to the better paying gigs, bully for them!

If they hang onto two or three paychecks, and short-change one or two or all three of them indefinitely, then I lose respect for them. Do it long enough and it becomes downright dishonest, and their reputation as journalists deserve to suffer. You should work as hard for your paycheck in Year X as you did in Year 1, and once you start unilaterally scaling back -- not to care for a sick mother, not to be a better dad but to move your schtick to other media for someone else's paycheck -- you are cheating the system.

And yes, captzulu, it is imperative that the newspaper honchos call someone on that behavior. But doing it is the character flaw, whether you're called on it by bosses or not.

I'm all for TK being an outstanding sports columnist back in the day and I'm all for him being a radio/TV giant now (though I selfishly prefer the former incarnation). I just wish he had made a cleaner break sooner, before he so severely watered down his WaPo work.

What is in bold is what captzulu was getting at (at least my interpretation) ... WaPo editors shouldn't have allowed the watering down to take place.

I'm glad Tony is doing what he think is best for his career. Who are we to judge what is best for him?

 

[Omar_dont_scare]

I may not be remembering properly, but hasn't TK openly griped on his radio show for a couple of years now about his hatred of the "columnettes" he'd been relegated to in the printed Post?

If that's right, and I think it is, then the watering down was not only allowed by the WP honchos but thought up by them.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

I may not be remembering properly, but hasn't TK openly griped on his radio show for a couple of years now about his hatred of the "columnettes" he'd been relegated to in the printed Post?

If that's right, and I think it is, then the watering down was not only allowed by the WP honchos but thought up by them.

You are correct.

 

[Piotr Rasputin]

Can someone tell me a little bit about what kind of columnist/writer Kornheiser was when he was on top of his game?

Like I said, all I know is the guy who brags about being uninformed and not paying attention to sports. I'm too young to recall the other incarnation of Kornheiser.

I'm not trying to dog him. I seriously am curious.

I'll let him do the honors for you.

Here.

Here.

Here.

OK, that's tremendous stuff.

Why does he like to act like a dumbass buffoon who doesn't care about anything?

I'm especially impressed by the headline writer on the jansen story. It's not like Lord of the Rings was an overused, trendy headline at that point. Seven years ahead of the curve . . . .

I can't speak specifically for Kornheiser, but it seems a badge of honor for columnists to pat themselves on the back for not knowing something. Like they think it's schtick, rather than odiousness.

Look for plenty of it in summer 2010.

 

[Guybehindtheguy]

He's bad at his easy job, and he doesn't care that he sucks.

That's buffoonery.

The buyout check has hardly been earned.

Missing the blue font? I mean, are you serious?

And Joe, "sell out." Trying to think how writing great stories for 30 years, then making a mint down another avenue is "selling out." The guy is in his mid-late 50s, hasn't earned the right to not write? He doesn't "owe" it to anybody to write. He's earned the ability to call his own shots.

There are few among us who would bypass an opportunity for more exposure and more money.

I don't see anybody making the same argument about Jackie Mac, who took the buyout and can now get her face on ATH and ESPN.com all the time.

And I don't think Kornheiser was a "buffoon" who didn't pay attention. He simply has a more diverse interest in life than just sports and simply tries to bring a little perspective and levity to the situation. Does that make him the right fit for MNF? Probably not, but hey, when MNF calls, you've got to answer the phone, right?

 

[VJ]

Anyone who uses the phrase "selling out" on this board is insane. People post thread after thread about layoffs and then when a writer does well enough that he is no longer dependent on his newspaper to provide a living, he's now "selling out". Give me a break.

Maybe TK should have avoided doing TV or anything with the internet and he could have wound up getting laid off instead of bought out and without another source of income.

Good for him taking care of his family. I'd like to see one of his critics on here looking his wife or child in the face and telling him/her that they can't take a job with ESPN or on television for twice the income because they don't want to "sell out".

 

[lono]

The buyout check has hardly been earned.

Spend 29 years at the same company, one that decides to reward your loyalty by asking you to leave, and then get back to us about the notion of "earned."

 

[captzulu]

I have absolutely no problem with somebody quadruple-dipping. I mean, you do good work for a couple decades and when you've reached a point where you can reap the financial rewards for your good work, you're supposed to turn it down? For what? Some noble sense of obligation to an industry that doesn't value its employees? I don't have any problem with guys making a big name for themselves in newspapers, then shifting primarily into other lines of media, and finally punting newspapers to the curb altogether. The only issue I would have is when the writer's new careers demand his time to the point where he can no longer do his newspaper job adequately; but even then, the fault lies more with the newspaper for putting up with it than with the writer for getting away with it. As much as newspapers screw over their employees, I'm not exactly sorry to see a few newspaper employees get to screw newspapers back.

I'm all for people using their newspaper work to springboard to other opportunities.

It's just a matter of timing. If they minimize the time where they left-hand the day job and, ideally, leap completely to the better paying gigs, bully for them!

If they hang onto two or three paychecks, and short-change one or two or all three of them indefinitely, then I lose respect for them. Do it long enough and it becomes downright dishonest, and their reputation as journalists deserve to suffer. You should work as hard for your paycheck in Year X as you did in Year 1, and once you start unilaterally scaling back -- not to care for a sick mother, not to be a better dad but to move your schtick to other media for someone else's paycheck -- you are cheating the system.

And yes, captzulu, it is imperative that the newspaper honchos call someone on that behavior. But doing it is the character flaw, whether you're called on it by bosses or not.

I'm all for TK being an outstanding sports columnist back in the day and I'm all for him being a radio/TV giant now (though I selfishly prefer the former incarnation). I just wish he had made a cleaner break sooner, before he so severely watered down his WaPo work.

What is in bold is what captzulu was getting at (at least my interpretation) ... WaPo editors shouldn't have allowed the watering down to take place.

I'm glad Tony is doing what he think is best for his career. Who are we to judge what is best for him?

Yeah, that's more or less my point, though I must say I can't fault someone in that position for dragging their feet just a bit before quitting the newspaper job. You want to make sure your other gigs are solid before you make the clean break. I'm not sure how long Kornheiser has had his hands in all the other stuff, so I can't really say if he should've left sooner. But hey, if the newspaper lets you do less and still pull down a paycheck, you would be a fool to not do it for as long as you can.